Washington says $12 billion. History says trillions.

The Intercept Says Official Estimates Dramatically Understate Long-Term Financial Burden of Operation Epic Fury.

The financial cost of the U.S. war against Iran may be far higher than publicly acknowledged, potentially reaching into the trillions of dollars over time, according to an analysis by The Intercept.

The report argues that early estimates from the Trump administration significantly understate the true expense of the campaign, particularly when long-term obligations such as veterans’ care and interest on war-related debt are factored in.

President Donald Trump has suggested that the military campaign—dubbed Operation Epic Fury—could be sustained indefinitely using existing Pentagon stockpiles. His economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, put the cost at roughly $12 billion.

But defense analysts and unnamed government officials cited by The Intercept say the numbers tell a different story. They estimate that a three-week war could cost between $60 billion and $130 billion in direct expenditures alone. If fighting stretches to eight weeks, those costs could rise to $250 billion.

Crucially, those projections do not include the months of military buildup in the Middle East before the first strikes in late February, nor do they account for the longer-term economic consequences of sustained deployment.

The U.S. military budget already exceeds $830 billion for fiscal year 2026, the largest in the world. Lawmakers are reportedly considering adding at least $50 billion to a $1.5 trillion defense request for fiscal year 2027.

Historical precedent offers a cautionary tale. The George W. Bush administration initially projected that the Iraq War would cost about $40 billion. Subsequent independent assessments have placed its total price tag at roughly $8 trillion by 2021, once long-term medical care, disability payments and borrowing costs were included.

Meanwhile, U.S. national debt is nearing $39 trillion, up sharply over the past year. Trump campaigned on pledges to avoid “endless wars” and reduce government debt, promising to cut wasteful spending rather than embark on costly foreign conflicts.

The financial debate intensified this week after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest. Kent argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” and accused the administration of being pressured into war.

As missile exchanges escalate in the Gulf and energy markets react to instability, the military dimension of the conflict dominates headlines. But behind the scenes, economists warn that the longer-term fiscal fallout could reshape U.S. finances for decades — long after the bombs stop falling.

Joe Kent Under Investigation Over Alleged Classified Leak as He Accuses White House of Silencing Dissent.

He quit over the Iran war. Now the FBI is reportedly investigating him.

The resignation of Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has taken a new turn after reports that he is under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an alleged leak of classified information.

According to Semafor and CBS News, the inquiry predates Kent’s departure Tuesday from the post where he oversaw analysis of terrorist threats. The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

Kent, who became the first senior administration official to resign in protest over the war with Iran, gave his first interview since stepping down during an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast. He argued that dissenting voices were sidelined in the lead-up to U.S. airstrikes on Iran launched on Feb. 28.

“A good deal of key decision makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion to the president,” Kent said, describing what he characterized as a lack of “robust debate.”

While careful not to directly criticize Donald Trump, Kent asserted there was no intelligence indicating Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. He alleged that Israeli officials had heavily influenced the push for military action, claims that have drawn criticism for invoking sensitive political narratives.

Kent said he resigned because his objections were being ignored. “I know this path that we’re on, it doesn’t work,” he said. “I can’t be a part of this in good conscience.”

The White House responded sharply to his resignation, with Trump dismissing him as “weak on security” and insisting Iran represented a “tremendous threat.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said decisions about Iran ultimately rest with the president.

Kent, a former Green Beret with multiple combat deployments, lost his wife in a 2019 suicide bombing in Syria before later entering politics and then returning to government service. His tenure at the counterterrorism center had already drawn scrutiny due to his past political associations and controversial statements.

If confirmed, the FBI investigation would add legal uncertainty to an already politically charged resignation — one that highlights deep internal divisions over the war with Iran and the decision-making process behind it.

Deep-Penetrator Bombs Target Iranian Coastal Missile Sites as Tensions Escalate in Strategic Waterway.

The fight for Hormuz just went underground — literally.

The United States military has dropped multiple 5,000-pound deep-penetrator bombs on hardened Iranian anti-ship missile positions near the Strait of Hormuz, escalating efforts to secure one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

US Central Command said Tuesday that the strikes targeted coastal defense cruise missile sites capable of threatening international shipping. Roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass through the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.

“The Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles in these sites posed a risk to international shipping in the strait,” Centcom said in a statement.

U.S. officials confirmed that the munitions used were GBU-72 Advanced Penetrators — heavy bunker-busting bombs designed to destroy deeply buried and reinforced targets. The weapon was developed to address hardened military infrastructure and can be deployed by both fighter jets and bombers.

The strikes come as Iran continues attacks on vessels in the strait and maintains its effective blockade of the waterway. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has said the strait will remain closed in response to joint U.S.-Israeli air operations launched on Feb. 28.

Energy markets remain on edge. Disruptions to oil transit have driven up gasoline prices in the United States and globally, intensifying political pressure in Washington and abroad.

Iran’s ability to deploy low-cost drones, lay sea mines and fire anti-ship cruise missiles has complicated Western planning. European allies have so far hesitated to join U.S.-led efforts to reopen the strait, citing the risk of asymmetric retaliation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican ally of President Donald Trump, criticized European reluctance this week, warning of “wide and deep” repercussions for alliances. Trump, in a social media post Wednesday, suggested that if the U.S. were to “finish off” what he called the Iranian regime, other nations reliant on Hormuz energy flows would have to assume responsibility for securing the strait.

The deployment of heavy penetrator bombs signals a shift from surface-level engagements to direct strikes on Iran’s coastal missile infrastructure. Whether the move deters Tehran or provokes further escalation will shape the next phase of a conflict already rippling through global energy markets.

Finland has no direct stake in Hormuz. So why is its president talking about joining the fight?

President Alexander Stubb Signals Openness to Backing U.S. Operations — With Ukraine in Mind.

Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb, has emerged as one of the few European leaders openly suggesting that the European Union should consider supporting U.S. efforts in the Strait of Hormuz. His reasoning has less to do with Iran than with Ukraine.

While most major EU powers — including France, Germany and Italy — have stressed restraint and declined to commit forces to the Gulf, Stubb has said countries with “the capacity and the will” should help Washington secure maritime trade routes.

In London, he went further, reacting positively to the idea that European naval support in the Gulf could be leveraged to extract stronger U.S. backing for Kyiv in its war with Russia.

At the heart of Stubb’s calculus is concern that the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is diverting American military resources and political attention away from Ukraine. Rising oil prices, driven in part by instability in the Strait of Hormuz, also benefit Russia by boosting energy revenues. From Helsinki’s perspective, anything that weakens Western focus on Ukraine strengthens Moscow’s hand.

The proposal has met skepticism inside Europe. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius publicly questioned what a handful of European frigates could accomplish that the U.S. Navy cannot. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said there is “no appetite” in Brussels to widen EU naval operations beyond existing missions.

Finland’s own naval capabilities are limited: a small fleet of missile boats and minesweepers, designed primarily for Baltic Sea defense. The Baltic states that have echoed Stubb’s posture — Estonia and Lithuania — field similarly modest forces. Any deployment would be symbolic rather than decisive.

Still, symbolism may be the point. For Stubb and like-minded leaders, visible alignment with Washington in one theater could help maintain U.S. engagement in another. The risk, critics argue, is entanglement in a conflict far from Europe’s core security interests.

Public support within the EU for involvement in the Iran conflict remains weak. Larger military powers such as France and Poland have ruled out participation in combat operations, though some have left open the possibility of maritime escort missions once hostilities subside.

For now, Stubb represents a small but vocal bloc that sees strategic linkage between the Gulf and Eastern Europe. Whether that linkage persuades Washington — or alienates other European partners — remains to be seen.

Revolutionary Guards Warn of Imminent Attacks on Saudi, UAE and Qatari Infrastructure as Oil Prices Surge.

The war has moved to the energy heartland. Now the Gulf’s refineries and gasfields are in the crosshairs.

Iran has threatened to strike major energy facilities across the Gulf after Israeli missiles reportedly hit the country’s largest gasfield, marking a sharp escalation in the widening regional conflict.

The targeted site, the South Pars gas field, contains the world’s largest known natural gas reserves and forms the backbone of Iran’s gas production. It is jointly shared with Qatar, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy assets in the Middle East.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned that facilities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar would become “direct and legitimate targets” in the coming hours.

State media identified Saudi Arabia’s Samref refinery and Jubail petrochemical complex, the UAE’s al-Hosn gasfield, and Qatar’s Mesaieed and Ras Laffan industrial hubs as potential targets. Authorities urged workers and residents near those sites to evacuate immediately.

Until now, U.S. and Israeli operations had largely avoided direct strikes on Iran’s oil and gas sector, a restraint seen as an effort to prevent a full-scale economic shock. The attack on South Pars appears to signal a shift.

Global markets reacted swiftly. Oil prices climbed toward $110 a barrel on Wednesday amid fears that the conflict could engulf the Gulf’s energy infrastructure, which underpins a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports.

The continuing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil flows — has already strained supply chains.

Eskandar Pasalar, governor of Iran’s southern Asaluyeh region, described the attack as a turning point. The “pendulum of war has swung” into what he called a “full-scale economic war.”

Qatar condemned threats to energy infrastructure. Government spokesperson Majid al-Ansari warned that targeting such facilities would endanger not only regional populations but global energy security.

Israeli media reported that the strike on South Pars was carried out with U.S. consent, though neither government immediately provided detailed confirmation.

If Iran follows through on its threats, the conflict could move decisively from military confrontation to economic warfare, placing the Gulf’s vast energy network — and the global economy — at direct risk.

If Iran falls, who stands next in line? In Ankara, that question is no longer theoretical.

Ankara Fears Crushing Tehran Could Trigger a New Phase of Regional Power Struggles.

As the war between Israel, the United States and Iran deepens, officials in Turkey are asking a stark question: if Tehran is broken, what comes next — and who?

From the first days of the open strikes on Iran in late February, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the attacks as violations of international law and warned that the conflict risked spiraling into a regional catastrophe.

Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reinforced that message, cautioning that escalation could destabilize energy markets and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint critical to global oil flows — and to Turkey’s import-dependent economy.

But Ankara’s concerns run deeper than fuel prices.

Turkish officials argue that forcibly dismantling Iran would not bring stability. Instead, it could collapse one of the region’s major power centers, triggering internal fragmentation and unleashing a chain reaction from Iraq and Syria to the Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean.

For Turkey, which has absorbed the spillover of wars in Iraq and Syria for two decades — from refugee waves to cross-border militancy — the prospect of chaos inside Iran is viewed as an existential strategic risk.

The fear is not ideological alignment with Tehran. Turkey and Iran compete across multiple theaters, from Syria to the South Caucasus. Rather, Ankara sees the regional balance — tense and imperfect though it may be — as preferable to a vacuum.

There is another layer to Turkish anxiety: the belief that Israel’s campaign may not end with Iran. Israeli political figures have publicly identified Turkey as a growing regional rival.

In Ankara’s strategic calculus, if Iran is decisively weakened, attention could shift toward other independent regional actors — with Turkey foremost among them.

Recent incidents have reinforced that sense of proximity. Iranian missiles have reportedly entered Turkish airspace during regional exchanges, prompting diplomatic protests.

For Ankara, the war is no longer distant. It is edging toward its borders.

At the same time, Turkey faces domestic economic fragility. Rising energy costs, inflationary pressure and market volatility could compound existing challenges. A prolonged regional war would translate quickly into higher import bills, strained budgets and social tension.

Ankara’s response has therefore followed a dual track: vocal diplomatic opposition to escalation and quiet reinforcement of defensive preparedness. Erdogan has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and mediation, framing diplomacy as the last barrier before a broader conflagration.

In Turkish strategic thinking, the destruction of Iran would not conclude a conflict. It would reset the Middle East into a far more combustible phase — one in which alliances shift, power vacuums open and rivalries intensify.

For now, Turkey speaks the language of restraint. But behind that language lies a sober calculation: if the region’s fire is not contained, it will not stop at Iran’s borders.

He believed the West would never accept Iran’s regime. Two decades later, he died in a war he once predicted.

Slain Iranian Security Chief Long Argued the West Sought Regime Change — A Warning That Now Echoes in War.

When Ali Larijani sat for an interview in Tehran in 2006, he was already convinced that Iran’s standoff with the West was not truly about uranium enrichment. It was about survival.

“If it was not the nuclear matter, they would have come up with something else,” he said at the time, dismissing Western concerns as pretext. The pressure on Iran, he argued, was reason enough to suspect that regime change — not diplomacy — was the real objective.

Nearly two decades later, Larijani is dead, reportedly killed in a targeted Israeli airstrike. His death marks one of the highest-profile assassinations since the conflict between Iran, Israel and the United States erupted into open war.

At the time of his death, Larijani was again serving as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the same post he held during fraught nuclear negotiations with Western powers in the mid-2000s.

A former commander in the Revolutionary Guards, he combined ideological loyalty with a calculating pragmatism that sometimes put him at odds with more flamboyant figures inside the Islamic Republic.

He had watched Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win the presidency in 2005 and bristled at what he saw as unnecessary provocations toward Israel and the West. Larijani sought accommodation that would preserve the regime’s security. Ahmadinejad preferred confrontation.

Their rivalry culminated in Larijani’s resignation in 2007 — widely interpreted as evidence that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sided with the president.

Yet Larijani never drifted far from power. He later became speaker of the Majles and remained a fixture within the ruling establishment. As unrest swept Iran in recent years, he was reportedly tasked with suppressing protests — a role critics say he carried out ruthlessly.

He was not a reformer. But neither was he a caricature. Reports suggested he opposed elevating Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, to the supreme leadership, favoring instead a candidate who might temper public anger. Whether that was conviction or calculation is unclear.

What is clearer is that Larijani’s worldview — that the West’s hostility was implacable — shaped his politics. He warned in 2006 that war would send oil prices soaring and could lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Those predictions now define the global economic landscape.

His life embodied the paradox of Iran’s ruling elite: pragmatic yet unyielding, suspicious yet strategic. His death may silence one voice in Tehran, but it does not end the conviction he articulated years ago — that for Iran’s revolutionary state, compromise was always temporary, and confrontation inevitable.

SAPO Says Risks to Jewish, American and Israeli Targets Have Increased Amid Escalating Middle East Conflict.

The Iran war isn’t just reshaping the Middle East. Sweden now says the fallout is reaching Europe’s north.

Sweden’s Security Service has warned that the war involving Iran, Israel and the United States is increasing security risks inside the Nordic country, including potential threats to Jewish, American and Israeli interests.

In its annual national security assessment released Wednesday, the Swedish Security Service, known as SAPO, said developments in the Middle East are heightening concerns about retaliatory actions and proxy activities on European soil.

“History has shown that a desperate and pressured regime can be a dangerous regime,” said Fredrik Hallstrom, SAPO’s head of operations, referring to the current conflict involving Iran.

Security Service Chief Charlotte von Essen stated in the report that the U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran — and Tehran’s countermeasures — have “increased the threat against American, Israeli and Jewish targets in Sweden.”

Iran has long been viewed by Swedish authorities as a potential security concern. Officials have previously warned that foreign state actors have exploited domestic criminal networks, particularly amid Sweden’s ongoing struggle with gang-related violence, to conduct operations inside the country.

Beyond Iran, the agency reiterated that Russia remains the primary long-term security challenge. SAPO described Moscow as increasingly willing to engage in hybrid operations across Europe in support of its war in Ukraine. Russian authorities have repeatedly denied involvement in such activities.

Swedish investigators have reviewed hundreds of suspected sabotage cases in recent years, including incidents involving underwater cables, electricity substations and water treatment facilities. However, SAPO said it has not been able to definitively link any physical sabotage inside Sweden to a foreign power.

“Overall we expect that the threat levels against Sweden will continue to deteriorate in the coming years,” von Essen said.

The assessment underscores a broader European concern: conflicts far beyond the continent’s borders are increasingly generating security repercussions at home, from infrastructure vulnerabilities to potential attacks on symbolic targets.

For Sweden, once regarded as a relatively insulated nation, the message from its security services is clear — global instability is now a domestic issue.